


Response to "The Vanishing Ladies of Supernatural"

by Madiholmes



Category: Supernatural
Genre: Essay, Fandom, Gen, Nonfiction, Other
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2015-06-19
Updated: 2015-06-19
Packaged: 2018-04-05 02:48:57
Rating: Not Rated
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Chapters: 1
Words: 3,660
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/4162815
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/Madiholmes/pseuds/Madiholmes
Summary: <blockquote class="userstuff">
              <p>Basically a full response to the Essay "The Vanishing Ladies of Supernatural"</p>
            </blockquote>





	Response to "The Vanishing Ladies of Supernatural"

> This is a response to this essay:
> 
> <http://www.popmatters.com/feature/193440-banished-to-oz-the-vanishing-ladies-of-supernatural/>
> 
> The female characters of _Supernatural_ shouldn't always have to be sacrificed to develop the plots of their male costars.

 

And yet pretty much all secondary characters end up exactly in this position- men, women, gays, angels, vampires, nutters, werewolves (okay, that was one chick and that was more for mangst), ghosts, on and on and on

 

> In the CW program _Supernatural_ , Mary Winchester (Samantha Smith) is burned alive in her son’s nursery. John Winchester (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) raises their sons while fighting monsters in search of revenge against the demon who killed her.

 

Yep, that’s the plot set up. The actress who played Mary is very proud of her role, and still has merch from the pilot with her body on it. Iirc, the best is a coffee mug that when filled with warm coffee, she bursts into flame. That’s genius merchandising.

 

> Jessica Moore (Adrianne Palicki) dates Sam Winchester (Jared Padalecki) and, when he returns home, she is burned alive. Sam joins his brother Dean (Jensen Ackles) to seek out revenge against the demon who killed her.

Yep. Two women fridged in the same episode to kickstart this whole series. I totally grant this, but it’s also plot symmetry and irony.

 

> Jo (Alona Tal) and Ellen (Samantha Ferris) Harvelle, who help search out the devil himself, are willing to blow themselves up to defeat a pack of hellhounds on the group’s tail. This fuels the Winchester boys’ drive for revenge against Lucifer.

I posit that Jo and Ellen might have the best death scenes in the entire series. Not just the death themselves, but the build up, failure of the mission, and fall out. It’s the same plot almost mirrored in The End, where Dean is more than willing to sacrifice his team to get to Lucifer. It’s the same here, only Dean isn’t that cunning. But Jo getting killed with Ellen sacrificing herself to help the Winchesters and unable to live without her daughter is powerful. Don’t take away Ellen’s decision, because she is 100% in full control of this situation. This isn’t about the Winchesters, this is about her.

This is also back when the Winchesters and Azazel’s family were gunning for each other all Hatfield v. McCoy style, and it was a solid beat to continue this on with Meg leading the charge yet again to kill more Winchesters (Jo and Ellen by proxy), and back when Meg just fucked people up.

 

> Most recently, resident nerd-turned-hunter Charlie Bradbury (Felicia Day) refuses to give vital information she’s decoded to the bad guys, instead securing the information and letting herself be killed by said bad guys. If the previews for _Supernatural_ ‘s 10th season are any indication, this serves as fuel for the revenge machine that is Dean with the Mark of Cain.

 

Let’s be honest here. This is “all” about Charlie. Nobody gave a shit beyond some small tears about Kevin, and he’s as much of a “minority” as Charlie is. Or Mrs. Tran when she “died.”

 

> The names and stories vary, but one thing remains the same:
> 
> Mary and Jess die.
> 
> Jo and Ellen die.
> 
> Charlie dies.
> 
> Then the boys get mad and use that to get even.

Like with John, Bobby, Cas, Ash, Samandriel, Kevin, Henry, Balthazar, Rufus, Frank, Henrickson,

 

So many people. This isn’t even a comprehensive list.

> _Supernatural_ is [assumed to be by the author] highly masculine show in many of its details: everything from the cherry ‘67 Impala, the plaid clothing, the guns, and the pretty local girls in bars.

There are full on lesbians in Topeka, Kansas who are 100% into these things, and have never once heard of Supernatural. My hair stylist (not a lesbian) was sad last time I saw her, because she’d gotten hunting gear and camo from her boyfriend for Christmas (which she wanted), and her co-workers thought she should have gotten jewelry instead. And she is “girlier” than I am.

 

None of this is masculine, highly or not. I know that’s what Kripke wanted to make: a dude’s show of things he loved as a kid, but women can enjoy this stuff as much as men can, and not because their Male SO’s got them into it. Kripke didn’t know he’d caught lightning in a bottle, and he certainly didn’t know he’d catch the women’s audience he’d get, but women full on enjoyed this show in the first seasons as much as men did, and they enjoyed it more when it was at its most “dudebro”iest.

 

> It is a story of family, but it is especially a story of brothers, of a father and sons, as seen in the parallel relationships between John-Dean-Sam and God-Michael-Lucifer.

THAT’S THE FUCKING POINT OF THIS SHOW- IT’S ALL ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BROTHERS, SONS, AND FATHERS, AND THE STRESSES THAT ARE CREATED FROM THEM. THIS IS BIBLE FANFICTION.

 

> There is nothing wrong with these features, certainly;

no. Shit.

> a lot of them are what give the show its charm.

So much condescension.

 

> This is also not to say the show is stereotypically masculine from cover-to-cover. In a lot of ways, the show questions, manipulates, and twists these sorts of expectations. Dean struggles with showing emotion, but it’s not hailed as a strength of his; in fact, his brother Sam often calls him out when he fails to do so.

In a lot of ways, you’re assuming that stereotypically masculine dudes can’t have complex emotions or issues without it having to subverting that trope as the default setting for this kind of character development.

> Additionally, many of the female characters are just as complex and strong and capable as their male counterparts. When the boys first meet and Jo and Ellen, the ladies don’t know who the brothers are and successfully hold the Winchesters at gunpoint until they get answers.

Yeah, but that’s not really what made them great as characters. If you didn’t notice, Jo and Ellen were having the same fights and issues as John and Sam were having, only reversed. In many ways, this is about the expectations of what parents put on their children- even for valid safety issues and how children have to grow and choose their own lives from that even if it means fighting with a parent. It’s like if Jo’s father was a cop, and she wants to be a cop, but Ellen doesn’t want her to be a cop. Ellen knows the dangers involved, so does Jo, but Jo has to make that decision for herself, not her mother.

> In later seasons, it’s revealed Mary herself was a hunter, skilled enough to take on an angel and be fairly evenly matched when the occasion called for it. At the same time, she’s compassionate, and has desires outside of the monster-hunting job.

Yeah, so are so many other people. Btw, Mary was “pregnant” when she got her ass handed to her by Anna. And not once did Mary try to go “please don’t hurt me, I’m pregnant!” No, she took that beating like a goddamn terminator.

> _Supernatural_ is well-known amongst its fans for killing off just about every character at least once; in fact, a running joke about the program is that everyone has lost count of Sam and Dean’s numerous resurrections. Why is it an issue, then, that all of the aforementioned women die? Is it a problem, or is it something one can point to simply for an excuse to complain?

I will say this. It is true that while everyone dies, the tendency is to bring the male characters back more than the female ones. That’s a valid discussion point, and one I’ve yet to see play out. It IS a dude show, it’s never pretended to be otherwise.

 

> Secondary characters who have come to the forefront—the Winchester boys’ surrogate father Bobby Singer (Jim Beaver), the fallen angel on their shoulder Castiel (Misha Collins), and King of Hell Crowley (Mark A. Sheppard)—are never women.

(cough) Mrs. Tran Claire, and the maid in that one S7 ep. They’ve literally all been women at one point in their lives. Maybe not the real point here, but it’s still a point.

> Even women who become regulars that are equal in skill to the men—Jo and Ellen in season two or Ruby (Katie Cassidy and Genevieve Cortese) in seasons three and four—are not given the same kind of on-screen time and explicit exploration as Bobby, Castiel, or Crowley.

What? That’s bizarre. They’ve all been explored within their arcs, but you’re ignoring that Jo and Ellen were in 6 episode? Ruby 1 was one season, and Ruby 2 was one season. Bobby, Castiel, and Crowley have all been in five seasons at least.

> When Bobby dies, he is not suddenly swallowed up in an explosion or stabbed with no warning. He spends an episode in a coma before his death, then lingers for a time as a ghost, giving the audience much more time to say goodbye to a character they have come to care about.

I know a lot of people were quite disappointed that they even did that after his death.

 

> His death is not glossed over as an excuse to light a fire under the Winchesters’ butts so they can in turn go after the latest Big Bad Guy without dragging their feet quite as much.

 

That’s 100% what his death was for. Because nobody really gave a shit about Dick Roman up until Bobby ate a bullet. His death was designed to reignite man pain for Sam and Dean (and the audience) to give a shit about the Leviathans.

 

> Yes, men on the show have been killed. Occasionally, some, like the young prophet Kevin, are even used to motivate revenge plots.

So…. You’re saying that Kevin had the exact same plot death point as the women ~~Let’s be honest here, Charlie~~ on this show. But that doesn’t count, because it undermines your thesis.

 

> Yes, there are female characters who have not been killed yet. But even in instances such as the still-surviving Sheriff Jody Mills (Kim Rhodes), when she shows up in an episode, many fans anticipate this will be the one where Mills dies.

That happens for “every” supporting character coming back on. Hell, they do that for “Cas,” and he’s bullet proof at this point. People actively do not want their favorite characters back on- male or female- because someone is going to die.

 

> Why does any of this matter? _Supernatural_ is a masculine show, but it has attracted a very strong female audience, especially amongst young women.

Not but. We are not the exception here. We are part of the audience.

Men who watch this show have Sam, Dean, Bobby, Castiel, and John to relate to and find role models in.

I 100% relate to Dean. Other people relate to other characters, men can relate to women and women can relate to men. It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world. Except for Lola. Admiring someone of the opposite sex is not less than for same sex admirations.

> Similarly, female fans have plenty of strong and complicated women to look up to and identify with. They can understand that Mary would want her children raised out of the dangerous and demoralizing hunter’s life, that Lisa wants to help her boyfriend find a normal life and recover from the PTSD monsters and hell gifted to him, and even that villain and witch Rowena seeks power and safety by any means necessary. It’s not that women and men can’t relate to stories of the opposite gender, but there is something important about representation, and seeing female stories told well.

Basically the gist of this is “women can aspire to awesome things! Like Motherhood! And Motherhood! And Angela Lansbury in Manchurian Candidate.” Those are my “only” options?! I adore Mary and her decision to quit hunting. That’s exactly what she wanted, and that’s exactly what Sam wanted. But you just posited that “female fans have plenty of strong and complicated women to look up to and identify with”= mothers. Probably on accident, but that’s what you did.

 

> The ultimate fate awaiting these gun-toting or whiz-kid-researching or heaven-defying women? It’s being avenged by men after their premature and often shortly-mourned and even shortly-recognized deaths, or just disappearing from the narrative altogether.

Or they just get ganked, tossed off the side, and forgotten and unmourned for. Like Abaddon, Lillith, Ruby, Meg, that one vampire who wouldn’t kill.

What does this tell the young females in the audience? What does it tell the males?

Not to completely ignore examples that don’t conform to my biases?

 

> Charlie’s death, in particular, is a blow to a core audience of _Supernatural_.

Was it? Was it “really?” Which core? Which fans?

 

> Yes, some _Supernatural_ fans may be fans of Felicia Day, a darling actress amongst the Internet nerdom, and are sad or perhaps outraged to see Day leave the show the way she did. But Charlie, as a character, fulfilled something more than that for the audience.

Ummmm….. not really? She was basically Becky, only she got to sit at the cool kids table. Charlie got to indulge in all of the “cool” genre fandom stuff, while Becky was shamed for being into the “stupid” genre fandom stuff. Charlie had tats! Becky wrote fanfiction.

 

> Previously, characters like Becky (Emily Perkins)—well-intentioned but socially inept, clingy, and obsessive—represented a stand-in for the audience as a fan of the series of books within the show itself, written by the prophet Chuck (Rob Benedict) that details the Winchesters’ lives. She’s relatable in some ways, perhaps, but not nearly as strong a character as other females on the show. Ultimately, she’s not a hero.

Says you! Way to dismiss this chick who clearly saved the day by knowing who actually had the Colt after it was stolen. This entire series literally hinged on Becky’s arcane knowledge of the Supernatural books so that the Winchesters knew that Crowley had the gun, not Lilith. That’s full-on hero-dom. She never once apologizes for who she is or pretends to be someone else. Yes, she has lousy boundaries (this is not the S7, ep I’m talking about), but she cares about people, knows what she wants and likes, and helps when she can. She’s almost like Margaret on Dennis the Menace. People mock her for being bossy and stubborn and wanting to do the things she wants to do, but she’s still a person who doesn’t conform just to fit in, and refuses to compromise herself just to hang out with people who would reject her otherwise. And people still think that Becky is stupid and yucky and wrong on some level despite being true to herself, and committing the sin of “not being cool.”

S7 Becky is a different topic and one I won’t get into here.

> Charlie is (now was) a nerdy female who had skills that could help, who had compassion for the boys, the drive to do the right thing, and a desire for adventure. Whether you think the character is or isn’t done well, she represented what the best characters tend to display: a relatable aspect for the audience, something to which they could aspire.

I and so many others did NOT relate to her or aspire to her. Please don’t lump all of us together.

 

> She grows into her ability to be a true asset to the team, and we see over several episodes her development from being scared by this paranormal world to a world where she’s equal to the boys.

More like she gets upgrades from Thompson, because she can’t get through an episode alive without an expansion pack.

> What’s more, she does this typically not with brute strength—though she can handle her own when she has to—but with her quick mind. She is a nerd who young women can look at and want to emulate. Before she was sent to Oz, it was feared among the fandom that she would be killed. When she returned from Oz, it was feared again that she would be killed.

As so many other characters beside her. Don’t pretend that Charlie is only special enough that nobody else cared about other characters dying.

 

>Characters like Sarah Blake (Taylor Cole) made the apprehension warranted. Sarah only previously appeared in episode 19 of the series, and returns in episode 171 simply to be used by Crowley as a threat,  a bargaining chip to make a deal. When the Winchesters don’t budge, Sarah dies.

Because it was shitty writing, and they pulled in a character that nobody remembered just to make this bullshit Carver plot work. Same with Tessa and Kevin and Benny and everyone else that Carver has tossed into the meat grinder to make his shitty plots work.

 

> In the following episode, Crowley then threatens to do the same to Mills. We’ve seen this with several female characters in the show’s run, dragged back after a long stretch off-screen simply to be killed: vampire Lenore who had been allowed to live because she refused to attack humans, angel Anna who was suddenly evil with little-to-no-explanation, and psychic ally Pamela, just to name a few. So when Charlie survives and goes to Oz,  and when she returns from Oz and survives again, it is a relief each time that, finally, a female character gets to live a little bit longer.

Meg lasted eight seasons and was literally only killed off, because the actress had health issues, and the show didn’t want to replace her even though they could. Ash got killed simply because Kripke hated the fucking Roadhouse. On and on and on.

>  Cue a bloodied Charlie laying lifeless in a tub, despite the fact that she knew better than to leave a safe place when there were people after her. Her death is more or less the result of an irrational and immature decision that is out of character for someone previously depicted as highly intelligent.

She died, because Buckner-Lemming are shitty writers who forced through this plot to finally get the MoC plot line going again. I full on agree that so much shit had to flow in that episode for any of it to make it work.

> Both men and women alike have found value in _Supernatural_ , and it’s not hard to see why: the cool muscle car affectionately nicknamed “Baby”; the brotherly love; the fun of watching the Winchesters battle any monsters-of-the-week like Wendigos and Werewolves or Big Bads like Lucifer and Leviathan; and the compelling and conflicted characters who don’t always make the right choices. But when women are not brought to the forefront and/or are unceremoniously killed as plot devices to motivate the males, the writers and showrunners cut a ripe opportunity at the knees.

No, they do that for everyone who’s died- esp during Carver. Gadreel, Benny, Kevin, Mrs. Tran (she came back), Samandriel, Tessa, Charlie, the provenance chick. That’s what happens on this show.

 

> Why did we never see an Ellen/Jo hunting team until just before their deaths?

Because Ellen didn’t want to hunt, but only did so to protect Jo. The actress was supposed to come back for a few more eps, but didn’t because she had other work (like Missouri). This also isn’t their story. Just like we don’t see other hunters hunting alone without the Winchesters needing a plot point.

 Why do we never check in with reluctant friends and odd couple Sheriff Mills and Sheriff Donna Hanscum (Brianna Buckmaster) without them calling the boys in for help? Sure, the focus of the show is on the Winchester brothers, but we get asides of Crowley that develop him as a character.

> Because this show is about the Winchesters. Even the last episodes had Jodi saying “I got this” when the Winchesters wanted to help. Donna is a novice, and doesn’t know what she’s doing for the most part. She does need the Winchesters help a lot.But female characters should not be sacrificed—both literally and figuratively—in favor of an all-male cast, only diversified by the occasional and usually short-lived female. The function of these female characters should not be reduced to their service of the males’ plots, especially with the support of many young female fans driving the viewership of the show. Women should not be immune from death, certainly, but they should be treated with the same consideration as their male counterparts. Not all the ladies have to die or be sent packing to Oz.

Sometimes I wonder if people recognize their own place in the sun in regards to this fandom. They can want certain things, highly desire it. But they can’t just full on demand things “that this show 100% conform to my own personal wants and desires,” and then throws fits when that doesn’t happen. So many “shoulds” and demands here. This isn’t your show.

> Supernatural has been thoughtful enough to make the ladies capable, multifaceted, and flawed. They know how to do female characters. The writers should take that extra step and not shy away from keeping the ladies onscreen as much as possible while still staying true to the show and its narrative.

Women characters on this show constantly kick ass, get their asses kicked, are treated as equals, and get full on, awesome deaths. Nobody handles them with kid gloves, and they can do everything they can get away with, be as girly or womanly or boyish or manly as they want to be. Stop pretending that a show with a 98% kill death ratio for all characters that women are somehow being singled out. Or that this has anything to do with women characters beyond Charlie. We get asides of Castiel that develop him as a character. Of course, this is just fine, as they are both gripping characters.


End file.
